Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Little respect towards Daniel please

[Paul Sebastian Ziegler]

Thank you.
I am replying off-list because I do not want to create even more flaming.
I'm not a dev. Just a user in terms of gentoo. I'm subscribed to the 
list since I need all the info I can get. And gentoo has definitely come 
a long way in the last few weeks. First that 8-Day-Flame about saving 
Dolphins in gentoo-user, now the dev-war.

It's nice to see someone pick up a good point and express it.
thanks

Paul

expose@×××××××××××.net schrieb:
> Dear list,
>
> Why not simply naming the "formal logic rules" for the "official venue where
> developers (and ex-developers and users) can talk out their disagreements"
> to be:
> 1. Anyone who is impolite get's kicked off.
> 2. Anyone who repeatedly and seemingly on purpose tries to harm the discussion
> will be kicked off.
>
> Impolite: Do, under _no_ circumstances, use a word MTV would have to mute, or
> that your grandmother (hopefully) wouldnt want to hear you say ;-)
>
> Repeatedly: We are humans, we make faults.
>
> Seemingly: If this wouldnt be part of the rule, there would be endless debates
> on wether it was on purpose or not.
>
> On purpose: We are humans, we make faults, it has to be premeditation or so
>
> Kicked off: There is a group of twelve zillion people who just ban those
> people from the list, or rather, their email-adresses.
>
> harming a discussion: a list of things that can be considered harmfull should
> be set up. sth like "pointing out things that are not relevent" (like
> statements the consist of no more than "i do not like that idea"), or trying
> to shift the issue to sth different, like "oh and besides, you often have
> typos" and so on...sth that does, in no way, help finding a solution is to be
> considered harmfull in the above sense.
>
> I also suggest banning those people from posting only.
> Plus is suggest banning to be longer. a 2hr ban wont prevent flaming, but will
> look funny, and is alot of work. (if this was meant seariously)
> Banning someone for a week, a month, and finally forever are more reasonable
> time frames i think...
>
> I think those rules would ensure people sit back before replying, and think
> before they write.
>
> There simply is no need to flame, get impolite, or harm a discussion, thus i
> find being as strict as this is okay.
> How do you think to politicians discuss problems in parliament? Call each
> other fuckhead if hundrets are watching, screaming through the room while
> throwing chairs and tables? I doubt it.
> Things are similar here: We are _alot_ of people and discuss.
> Certain rules of civilized discussion, that what's usually taught in
> elementary school, need to be followed here, too. Only that the issue isn't
> that someone can cut someone else off...
>
> If anyone comes up with that the progress of politicians is too slow:
> It is slow, because they do break one of the above rules, and because they do
> often search for solutions where there is no objectively clear winner,
> because the want to keep their power, have personal interests, and so on.
> And - would you honestly think politicians would get _more_ productive, if
> they started slandering each other?
>
> Yet, here things are somewhat different:
> Code is more secure, or faster, or smaller, or in another way "better" than
> other code, depending on what the most important thing is for this piece of
> code.
> And a documentation is more or less understandable for the avg. user / dev, or
> is more correct, and thus simply is better.
>
> Here, i feel like we do not fail because we cannot find the solution that's
> best for most of us, but we fail because of personal problems. And those
> could easily be adressed by the above rules, as they in a way - as alot of
> what is to be considered "polite" does - 'remove' a part of our personality
> from the actual progress of discussing, since emotions are suppressed.
> Shortening discussions to their functional part is sth that would help to
> adress this issue, and on the other hand people could still become
> ("cyber")friends since there is IRC and private discussions need to go on
> anyway.
>
> At least, different personalities are what the current thing is all about, as
> far as i know about it, which (luckily?) isnt that much.
>
> Bryan Østergaard <kloeri@g.o> wrote:
>> Somehow a lot of people seems to think banning is the only possible
>> solution. I tend to think that's a horrible idea myself and most of
>> devrel backs me up on that.
> Of course it is a horrible idea, but isnt it better than seeing someone
> constantly insulting people, instead of being productive, functional,
> objective or at least polite?
> At the moment I feel like there is no real reason _not_ to insult anyone, for
> those who like to do so, which has to be changed or values will be lost
> completely. It can even be fun to get rid of aggressions collected throughout
> the week at once, yet the gym is the correct place to do so, not this list.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> 	Daniel
>
>
> P.S.: I know I did not read the complete thread, yet I am physically ill at
> the moment, not able to read it all. [ <-- fuel your flame-o-mat with
> this ;-) ]  Anyway I hope to have said something helpfull not mentioned
> before...

-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list